THE RANT ROOM

[onepower]

stivep

: "Removal" has broader meaning than "extraction."
So you removing uniform orientation of the large number of magnetic domains from a magnet
and even when the hammering is constant - it also consumes  more external energy per unit of time.
-as "energy "released  from magnetic domains includes  losses .
meaning of word  "energy "  used here is expressional.

How much from the (gross) of that "energy"  you can get from that process netto ? - less than 0
You are absolutely positively right that  by removing domains orientation you extracting nothing practically useful
or you didn't say that?
Wesley

We should separate the two discrete effects,
1)The impact producing heat as atomic jiggling.
2)The impact oscillations which re-orientates the magnetic domains weakening the magnetic field strength producing induction hence electricity.

In theory the work input as an impact should equal the heat output. While most of the induction energy should appear as extra energy separate from the heat produced. We should get more energy out than we put in because the magnetic energy was added to the magnet and stored in the domains at an earlier time. Ergo, stored energy is different than the input energy.

I think you fell into the same logic trap that most people do. Energy is not consumed it is always conserved in every case. Energy can take many different forms but it's always conserved.

In fact, many people/scientists including myself have looked at motionless magnetic systems for energy storage ie. a magnetic battery. I tested the experiment I described above as well as physical oscillators and demagnetizing coils able to release the stored energy within a magnets magnetic domains.

It was my theory that some inventors may have been using the Earths magnetic field as an energy source. For example...
1)The Earths magnetic field magnetizes a material.
2)The material is removed/hidden from the Earths magnetic field.
3)The residual energy stored in the magnetic domains is converted which produces induction and electricity.
4)The material is recharged by exposing it to Earths magnetic field again.

The only requirement for an energy gain is that the process to disrupt the magnetic domains releasing energy be less energy than what was induced producing electricity. The theory is very easy to understand it's the application which is difficult.

AC

[stivep]

Thank you  onepower  I agree.
However energy at input will be always greater than at the output, unless  the process is coupling to another energy source by "opening a door"  to its transfer.
Wesley

[rakarskiy]

I believe it stands any criticism put to it. It works for me and works for thousands of engineers designing motors and generators, exactly and precisely, for the past several centuries. I think Lorentz Force Law is well proven.
bi

ps. BTW. You said:  "excitation power is 12V *5A = 72"

12 * 5 = 60.

I'd like to see those engineering calculations of a synchronous generator when the Lorentz force calculates the EMF at idle.   

[kolbacict]

You are right  Magnetic field cannot be accumulated, only induced, excited.

https://www.google.com/url?esrc=s&q=&rct=j&sa=U&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D1ZAMosm2M54&ved=2ahUKEwiTptObi8uAAxUJGRAIHftYDpYQuAJ6BAgBEAI&usg=AOvVaw3UTAPeJpn9Bqz9QNTwEqSn
What about Leedskalnin's "magnet keeper"?

[rakarskiy]

Rakarskiy with no irony, you know that  I  have a lot respect to you personally as well as to Ukraine and its history.
So make it..
Become the  wealthiest person on the earth or the most known one.
if it works, but if it not than.. what?

I was dealing with talented people  for long.
Extraordinary claims require  extraordinary proof.
And till today nor you nor Holcomb  can provide it.

But  in my  personal opinion   you are on the top - only fallowing wrong, totally wrong , or possibly not proven yet direction.
Wesley

I hope to complete my work soon. It's quite interesting. There is a little bit left to do, but it takes time anyway.